NYT Decries Sutherland Shooting and Idea of Gun Defense, Forgets That's What Stopped the Murderer

"“Look, I'm not against people owning guns...But..."

In light of the deadly shooting rampage at a small Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Monday’s installment of MSNBC’s Morning Joe was predictably comprised of appeals to the government for stricter gun laws.

During the one-sided leftist discussion, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, one of the rag's purported conservative writers, exemplified the left's adherence to dogma over facts where guns (or any issue, for that matter) are concerned. Stephens made a completely false, idiotic statement, claiming that there wasn’t one example conservatives could point to of anyone “[using] their guns to protect their liberties”:

"You won't find a single instance of that."

Astoundingly, the columnist had already forgotten - or was intentionally ignoring - that the very shooting being discussed was ended because a gun-owning neighbor engaged the murderer as he existed the church, possibly to reload or switch firearms.

Primarily, the anti-gun episode focused on expanded background checks for those who wish to purchase firepower. However, news had already been released suggesting that the background check system as it already exists should have prohibited mass murder Devin Patrick Kelley from purchasing a gun. Still, Morning Joe and guests were shooting from the hip with demands of increased scrutiny for those who wish to indulge the Second Amendment.

To that end, Stephens defended the argument he made in the Times just after the Mandalay Bay Massacre. In a disturbing introduction, co-host Mika Brzezinski said, simply, "Bret -- repealing the Second Amendment...Go!" Stephens stated,

“Look, I'm not against people owning guns. All sorts of people have highly credible and legitimate reasons to own guns. But, so long as we have a Second Amendment, there is no good legal argument -- you’ll, you're gonna disagree (referring to Sen. Blumenthal) -- but there's no good legal argument why someone can't own, say, 45 rifles, why people who don't have criminal records or haven’t -- have passed their background checks can't own small arsenals…And so the result is, the result is -- what we had now just yesterday in Texas is ubiquitous, and we don't even notice. I mean, it's just been a month since 58 people were murdered in Las Vegas and more than 500 injured.”

Stephens didn’t address the fact that most mass shooters don’t own many guns. In fact, according to Mother Jones, most mass shooters only use 1-3 weapons in the commission of their crimes. That statistic is true for the Sutherland shooting. Also true is the fact that the number of guns used in that crime was also the exact number used by a local hero to stop the crime. You know — one of those mythical occurrences that conservatives can’t point to.

Issues

People

Organizations